I am slightly rusty on
all this, not least as nothing (that I am aware of, and I have been asking), has
happened to make progress on these topics since the summer of 2005.
Yes, the
argument that vaccinated stock will be deemed unfit for export (and may well be
deemed regionally unacceptable or undesirable within the UK) will undoubtedly
impact on subsequent non-slaughter prices - the so-called 'two-tier' market.
Yes, this
is based on fear of carriers. No, the Government do not seem minded to
compensate for loss of value arising from this, so this is a
hurdle.
However
it could be overcome if united farmers had a reserve of cash from which to pay a
balancing sum to redress this fairly minor discrepancy - provided NFU, NFUS, CLA
all agreed this could be achieved quite fast as part of a cost
sharing initiative, ie a small levy to build a pot of cash to prepare for the
day when it is needed.
However, I do not think this suggestion has made it to the
table at Cost Sharing discussions, which I requested to attend (specifically to
develop this point) but was refused.
I do think that if farmers are responsible, collectively, for a
proportion of the costs of the eradication of the disease, then optimally cost
effective solutions would be found, such as this suggestion, by which a small
amount of financial lubricant could grease the wheels of
progress.
Sadly, the debate often does not seem to get past the
question "Why should farmers pay for what they / we cannot control, namely
an issue the Government is responsible for, the security of our borders?"
This is a valid enough point, and one in which the Government would
do well make some accessions, such as having Stakeholder meetings, such as
allowing Stakeholders to input into and monitor bio-security arrangements,
and to be involved in the practice and monitoring of Contingency Plan
rehearsals.
The other real issue is the meat from vaccinated animals -
pretty much all milk is pasteurised anyway, which meets the heat treatment
requirement.
The swill feeding ban has removed most of the major routes for onward
transmission. I am trying to think which routes remain - bones
fed to dogs would be one (the alleged source of the 1968 outbreak), although
this risk would be mediated presumably by asking livestock keepers or dogowners
accessing livestock pasture not to feed bones to dogs until Disease Free Status
regained.
The bottom line is still, that if the CVO wanted to embrace
vaccination to live using DIVA vaccines, he would have noticed these fundamental
stumbling blocks in the path to their usage, and he would have been convening
small and effective working groups to find cost-effective solutions to these
tricky but solvable problems.
The fact that we are still where we are now, (ie discussing this,
foreseeing problems and trying to find solutions, ten years after the event,
when Officials are paid to see this task through and are not), demonstrates that
the CVO has no interest whatsoever in ever actually using vaccination to
live - except, possibly, in a very 'worst case scenario', ie
an act of war.
He is not stupid. If he intended to be able to use
these tools he would lie awake at night worrying how to shift these obstacles,
and we would be aware of actions taking place to remedy them, quite possibly
involved even, and could then feel that we have achieved
something.
We have achieved a lot, but we are not there yet. When DEFRA
call us in to consult again on this issue, and see it through to a successful
outcome, then I may begin to feel reassured. Not
before.